Crush Liberalism

Monday, October 31, 2005

Wilson: "My wife's CIA career is over!"

What, they won't let her keep her overt desk jockey job at the CIA? That's odd!

Oh, maybe he's talking about her "covert" and "undercover" career, the one that's been non-existent since 1994. At any rate, Joe Wilson whined to the accommodating MSM (specifically 60 Minutes on "See? B.S." CBS) that Valerie Plame's career at the CIA was essentially DOA.

Wilson contends that his wife's identity was deliberately revealed by the Bush administration to get back at him for publicly challenging U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Right...and N.O.W. is just a group of average heterosexual women with no man-hating lesbian agenda! Anyway, read this nugget:

Former CIA agent Jim Marcinkowski, now a city attorney in Royal Oak, Michigan, told "60 Minutes" it was "outrageous" that Plame had been exposed.

"CIA people don't like cameras. We don't like publicity. We operate in the background as much as possible. So she's in a very, very uncomfortable spot," said Marcinkowski, who trained with Plame at the CIA.

Really? They hate attention? Then Valerie has one of the oddest forms of agoraphobia and "discomfort" I've ever seen here in that top-secret classified document known as Vanity Fair magazine:

Considering her husband is a proven liar, and that the press is sloppier than Ted Kennedy at Spring Break, it's not difficult to see this pap on the MSM tour.

Speaking of MSM pap and sloppiness, the MSM still refuses to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Plame was not a spy. Headline: "Rove should be fired, spy’s husband says" The same hubby that said she was not a covert agent at the time of the Novak column, no less.

Nope...no liberal media bias.

By the way: thanks to everyone yesterday for the kind words. Though I may retain an edge with my writing style, I'll try to keep the comments to those of you who frequently disagree with me above-board. You guys were great, and I do appreciate it.

Light activity today

This will be my only post today. I don't feel much like getting political today, after having just found out that an old high school classmate of mine named Monica has a malignant brain tumor in an advanced stage right now. She's had two operations to remove it, and it kept returning. Her and her family have made the mutual decision to stop surgery, chemo, and radiation, since the tumor is now bleeding into her brain. She's been given about 4 - 6 weeks, tops.

On days like this, politics just doesn't seem very significant. Maybe tomorrow, I'll feel differently. Until then, I wish everyone a happy, healthy day (and life).

Sunday, October 30, 2005

David Brooks: "WHY ARE DEMS SO OVERHEATED?"

David Brooks, hardly a right-wing apologist, had this to say about the current state of the Democrats:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."

"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

Emphasis mine. He's right. The GOP looks completely uncoordinated and maladroit, dropping the ball on so many things. Yet because the Dems are so unhinged right now, Americans aren't ready to give them the keys to the car yet (and they'll never want to give the keys to Ted Kennedy...but I digress). With the damage that Dems are inflicting upon themselves by catering to the moonbat wing of their once-proud party, it's hard to see Americans trusting them anytime soon. The average voter will do something like this:

(In the voting booth)

Hmmm...I could vote for the Republican, who has squandered my money and gotten in the way of great progress. Or, I could vote for the Democrat...who's crazier than Michael Moore when the buffet line closes!

(Sigh)...check one for the GOP!

Granted, I would likely vote for the Libertarian, but that's another topic for another day. But the point is that the GOP is giving voters an opportunity to vote Democrat, but the Democratic Party doesn't seem interested in allowing that to happen.

Friday, October 28, 2005

How the left honors the military's fallen

For recent moonbat visitors here who just swear that libs support the troops more than those right-of-center, and that libs who don't serve are somehow more noble than righties who don't serve, here's a blueprint of what NOT to do to honor the war dead:

Do NOT throw a "2000th soldier dead" party. Story and photos of people having WAY too much fun for what would otherwise be a somber event are here.

Why let a few dead troops get in the way of one kickass hippy shin-dig, huh?

Clean up your own house, moonbats, before you flutter into mine and level baseless, emotionally-charged and intellectually void charges. Literally...clean up your house. You moonbats and hippies stink!

Thursday, October 27, 2005

"Smartest woman in the world" a functional illiterate in economics

At least there is finally a Democrat proposing a solution instead of kvetching about it. Too bad the proposed solution makes as much sense as a "soup sandwich"!

Her Highness Hillary Clinton has been legislatively anemic since getting to the Senate over five years ago. However, such a puny legislative achievement pedigree hasn't stopped the MSM for showering her with favorable coverage like Bill Clinton showered Monica with...ah, never mind, that's too easy!

Well, now Her Highness has decided the best way to help Americans with their high gas prices would be to...increase the amount of money consumers pay for their gas prices. Excerpt from story:

Speaking to a group of alternative energy investors in Washington, D.C., Clinton proposed to sock oil companies with $20 billion in new fees that would be used to fund research on clean energy - driving up costs for oil producers that they would inevitably pass along to consumers.

(snip...)

Mrs. Clinton insisted that her $20 billion fee plan was "not about new energy taxes on consumers" - but she declined to say how oil companies would absorb the additional costs without charging consumers.

Emphasis mine. Notice how liberal politicans are petrified to use the more appropriate (and correct) terminology: taxes.

Does she think that the gas companies will take these new taxes lying down? Is she really that ignorant of economics, or is she just pandering for votes early on? She's probably tailoring her message to the same group of dumbed-down myrmidons who believe that corporations actually pay income taxes! In case you're one of those said myrmidons, here's how it works:

Corporations don't pay income taxes. Their shareholders do, their employees do, and their customers (i.e. you, the general public) do. You can't tax a corporate entity. It's impossible. When a corporation pays taxes, it embeds the cost of the taxes into its products' prices. It puts a limit on how much money can be divvied up amongst their employees and shareholders. In short, it's a tax on everyone with the most remote connection to that business. Corporations don't pay taxes...they collect them.

So, if Her Highness wants to tax Conoco, Chevron, etc., then those companies will say "Fine. We're not going to let it affect our bottom line, so we need to increase prices at the pump to offset the new taxes (or, as Shrillary likes to call them, 'fees')!"

"Not about new energy taxes on consumers"? That would be the guaranteed outcome! Therefore, she's either economically stupid, or she's a pandering dishonest politician. So which is it?

Point to ponder about Fitzgerald

Patrick Fitzgerald, the "Leakgate" prosecutor, is having his motives and affiliations questioned as he continues his investigation. OK, fair enough, I guess. However, I read this tidbit (NewsMax via the AP):

The prosecutor has discussed other charges with defense lawyers in recent weeks, including false statements, obstruction of justice and mishandling of classified information. Libby and Rove have emerged as two of the key figures in the probe.

Emphasis mine. I have to wonder: does "mishandling of classified information" cover, oh, I dunno...stuffing sensitive national security documents down your trousers? Does "obstruction of justice" cover, say, stuffing said documents down said trousers in an attempt to keep a certain 9/11 Commission from getting potentially damning or embarrassing details about one's former boss?

Sandy Burglar Berger can stuff his pants like a Thanksgiving turkey with documents dealing with national freakin' security, and get nary a slap on the wrist. However, telling a reporter the name of a CIA desk jockey that nearly everyone knew, who had been in Vanity Fair magazine, whose name appeared on hack hubby Joey Wilson's corporate web site, etc., constitutes a crime. Was the investigator of Berger that weak, or is Fitzgerald that zealous?

Learn a lesson, GOP. Playing nicely with these people gets you nothing but heartache. These days, the GOP is like the kid on the playground that no one wants to play with. He'll give away his lunch money, let himself get bullied, and laugh when everyone makes fun of him...all in the hopes that something, anything, will make the others like him. It never works. It only encourages the others to keep stepping on him and accelerate the cruelty.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

USA Today photoshops Condi's eyes

Well, the blogosphere lit a fire under their sloppy asses hotter than Janet Reno at a Waco barbecue. How did USA Today polish their turd? Like this:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

I took a course in college called "Deciphering MSM bovine feces 101", and I can properly translate the Editor's Note for you:

We still underestimate the impact of the blogosphere, and grossly miscalculated the number of people who would notice our less-than-subtle attempt to portray an administration figurehead in a highly unflattering light. Getting caught red-handed is not in keeping with our editorial standards, and quite frankly, we're running out of ways to keep from continually getting caught like this. We have to use euphemisms like "unnatural" instead of "hideously demonic." Geez, the next thing you know, you'll want to check that documents are actually authentic and not forgeries! You people are never satisfied!

Anti-gay bigot: "London bombings were great!"

Fred Phelps, the hateful homophobic founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (and whose website is GodHatesFags.com), is even more deranged than I previously thought. I didn't think it was possible, but I think even less of him now than I did before. He now praises the London terrorist bombings that happened on 7/7/05. From The Sky Report:

The Sky Report has secretly filmed one of America’s most controversial Christian ministers praising the London bombings.

Fred Phelps says that terrorist outrages and natural disasters such as Hurricane Rita are examples of God’s wrath against countries such as America and Britain for tolerating homosexuals and homosexuality.

Fred Phelps, who set up the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, told our undercover reporter about the attacks, which killed 52 people:

"Oh I am so thankful that happened. My only regret is that they didn’t kill about million of them. England deserves that kind of punishment, as does this country (America)".

The church, which has 150 followers, recently started picketing funerals including those of American soldiers killed in Iraq, waving banners such as "Thank God 9/11", "God Hates Fags" and "Aids Cures Fags".

Phelps thinks that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7 happened because "God hates fags" and that America and the UK are too tolerant of the gay lifestyle. Well, Pakistan is incredibly intolerant of homosexuality, yet they were recently leveled by a large earthquake. So, Fred, are catastrophes the result of acts of an anti-gay God or aren't they?

Look, for the record, I think the Bible is clear on homosexuality: it's a sin. Don't flame me...read the rest of what I'm saying here, OK?

It is a sin. So is murder. So is lying. So is stealing. So is finding your neighbor's spouse attractive! There are a number of things that the Bible defines as being sinful, and I believe the Bible 100%. However, the Bible also says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It says that "before removing the splinter in your neighbor's eye, remove the log from your own eye first." It says "Love thy neighbor." It says "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

In other words, live and let live. Do I find acts of gay sex disgusting? Yes, of course. That's why I don't engage in them! I find beets disgusting, too, but I don't browbeat people who eat beets. Do I find many aspects of the gay agenda objectionable, such as trying to teach Heather Has Two Mommies and King and King to elementary school children, or trying to have the age of sexual consent lowered to 16 (happened during the early '90s)? You're damned right I do! However, as Phelps' mere pitiful existence proves, there are elements and factions of all sides of the political spectrum that must be confronted. Plus, opposition to issues such as gay marriage or gays in the military does NOT mean that those who have such opposition find cretins like Phelps appealing. We can agree to disagree on gay marriage, gays in the military, etc., but I'd like to think that we can all roundly condemn marginal bigots like Phelps who give the rest of Christians a bad name.

Does God have a problem with the gay lifestyle? In all likelihood, yes. However, is it too much to ask Him to be the judge instead of us? If God wants to cast gays into the pit of Hell, I'm certain He doesn't need our consent to do so. If He decides that gayness isn't that big of a deal or that it's no worse than lying or stealing, then He'll decide that, too.

My point is that I don't understand the seething pathological hatred that drives people like Phelps. God doesn't hate anyone, regardless of what they've done. Phelps may find that hard to believe, but if he actually would try reading the Bible (not too much to ask a church minister, is it?), he might discover that God is a loving, merciful entity. Phelps is a depraved, sick subhuman. May God have mercy on him.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Rosa Parks dies at age 92

Nearly 50 years ago, Rosa Parks made a simple decision that sparked a revolution. When a white man demanded she give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala., bus, the then 42-year-old seamstress said no.

At the time, she couldn't have known it would secure her a revered place in American history. But her one small act of defiance galvanized a generation of activists, including a young Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and earned her the title "mother of the civil rights movement."

Rosa displayed courage that few people have ever possessed. She had the temerity to demand that she be treated with the same respect and dignity, and possess the same rights, as anyone else. That a large chunk of the Southern population disagreed with that sentiment was shameful.

Fortunately, society has evolved greatly with respect to race relations in the last four decades. Unspeakable acts that would have once been excused by good ol' boy judges or purported "God-fearing" Christians are now roundly rejected by all but a depraved sliver of Americans.

While Americans may still have sharp divisions when it comes to race-related issues such as affirmative action or quotas (or even reparations), and while some race-hustling pimps like Jesse, Al, Calypso Louie, and David Duke benefit from the perpetuation of false racial problems, nearly all of us have to agree that race relations are substantially better and have nowhere to go but forward.

Such gains in race relations are due in large part to pioneers like Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated like some animal. She was better than that, she knew it, and she wouldn't accept it. The world is a better place for her contributions.

Enjoy your new seat in Heaven, Rosa. The view is much more pristine than that of Montgomery or anywhere else.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Stop the ACLU

Check out Jay's Stop the ACLU blog. I've touched on the ACLU and how it doesn't have A C-L-U-e about America and what makes it great. The organization's founder was a Communist, and his organization hasn't deviated much from its inception.

However, this blog is a great resource that keeps tabs on the ACLU, as well as their crazy moonbat allies on the left. It's always nice to know from time to time what the other side is up to, regardless of how anemic its support may be.

Anyway, I've linked to his blog now, and it will be a regular part of my blogosphere diet.

Key West evacuates without the feds?

I was watching the local morning show yesterday morning, and the anchorwoman said that Key West had loaded up some of the city buses and transported evacuees up to Miami's Florida International University. FIU is their hurricane shelter, I guess.

It dawned on me: "How can Key West do that?"

I mean, they didn't wait for the federal government to step in. They didn't wait for the feds to send Amtrak, Greyhound, UPS, FedEx, Domino's Pizza drivers, or anyone else to come get them. No, the city made the decision at the local level to use its resources to evacuate those who were incapable of evacuating on their own. How is this possible?

This development may come as a shock to moonbats who believe that the already-bloated federal government should be making decisions like these. A city prepping for its own evacuation...what a novel idea! Next thing you know, the state of Florida may actually have a contingency plan for dealing with the aftermath. What? They already do? Both city AND state plans that don't rely on federal handholding? This is chaos, I tell ya...pure insanity!

Someone send a memo to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco that there do exist elected officials who know what to do when a hurricane comes bearing down on their areas.

UPDATE: Haloscan supposedly fixed now

Haloscan is supposed to allow comments again. Apparently, they're testing a spam comment filter, and it worked TOO well...it thought all comments were spam. Granted, some are annoying and tiresome, but that's not the same as spam! ;)

Anyway, my apologies for Haloscan's error. I'm still searching for a more reliable service, but it's hard to beat Haloscan's price of $0.00. Then again, I guess I'm getting what i paid for it!

Bush to pick Greenspan's replacement today?

According to the AP story, Bush may name Greenspan's replacement today. Greenspan's term ends Jan. 31, and apparently, it's not going to be renewed. I don't know if it was his choice or not.

Well, in light of some of Bush's other crony-based picks, such as his personal lawyer for the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe Bush will pick his personal accountant as the Fed chairman! We'll find out soon enough.

Comment problems?

It's Haloscan...again. Haloscan is what I use for comments and trackbacks, and it appears to be flaky and unreliable again. If you try to comment and can't, you (likely) haven't been banned. I'd recommend saving your comments to a file (text file, Word document, etc.), then try later to copy-and-paste them in.

Sorry about that. I'm looking for a new free comment and tracking tool (better than Blogspot's, which is pretty lame), hopefully more reliable.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

NYT: Rove, Libby NOT going to be indicted

This is the Old Gray Hag, so take this fishwrap's story with a grain of salt. You have no idea how uneasy I am referencing one of their stories, given their recent credibility problems. But if true, there will be a boom in dental visits in this country resulting from the collective gnashing of leftist teeth that Rove got away with "it" again. Story:

It's not clear whether Fitzgerald believes that Rove and/or Libby had indeed violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but couldn't prove his case. Or whether he realized early on that the law didn't apply to Ms. Plame, who doesn't qualify as a covert agent because she hadn't served abroad within five years of her "outing."

Instead, the Times said: "Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement" - raising speculation that the Leakgate case may devolve into a Martha Stewart-like prosecution, which drew howls of derision from legal critics.

It's been said all along that the 1982 law couldn't have been broken, since Plame wasn't a covert agent. However, leftists remained willfully ignorant of that fact, thinking that if they just parroted the same lie over and over for a long enough period of time, said lie would become fact. Those of us who operate in the alternative universe known as "reality" were keenly aware that wouldn't happen.

So this could turn out to be like the Tom DeLay (or, as the Slimes references, the Martha Stewart) case. "He broke this law! What? It wasn't a law at the time he broke it? Oops...note to self: look up ex post facto in pocket legal dictionary. OK, how about this law? No? OK, I need another grand jury, and pronto! This one...no? OK, how about this grand jury? Great...we have a winner!"

Having said that, if a law was broken, then by God, prosecute. However, I find it humorous that Bill Clinton can commit perjury and get off (no pun intended) without jail time, yet Karl Rove mentions the name of a government employee in non-clandestine operations, and the left wants him drawn and quartered. I guess had Rove said "Valerie Plame works for the CIA...and she blew me", then the left would be OK with it. After all, if it's about sex...

Friday, October 21, 2005

Time to give up the keys

A 93-year-old man in Tampa hits a pedestrian with his car, drives three miles with the man's severed body stuck in his windshield and roof, before a toll worker sees the carnage and calls the cops. Full story here.

The old man didn't realize he'd hit anyone. He thought a body fell from the sky and hit his car when he stopped at the toll bridge. I hate it when that happens! The old fart is 93, was driving miles in the wrong direction from his house, then hit and killed someone...and he didn't have the first clue.

Anyway, the old man won't be charged. He should have his license revoked. However, anytime a politician tries to pass a law that requires people at and beyond a certain age to get retested for renewal of their driver's license, the AARP and other wizened citizens get madder than they do when they lose their favorite Bingo Night bonnets!

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Their perspective

House bans obesity lawsuits

The vote was 306 votes for common sense, and 120 votes for trial lawyers' interests. For those of you in blue states (or in Europe), 306 is more than 120, so that means that the bill passed. Story here.

This single sentence was hilarious:

Critics of the bill contend that a better way to make people responsible for how they eat is to require nutrition information on menus and menu boards.

Right...because so few Americans are aware of the fact that Bic Macs are loaded with calories and fat! Is Biff the high school jock going to pass up a pepperoni pizza only after he spots the nutritional content on the paper tray cover? "Whoa, dude...that's like...not very healthy, man! What are you trying to do, my dizzle...kill me? You guys have any, like, cauliflower instead?"

I find it ironic that the same group of people (primarily liberals) who think that a teenage girl is mature enough to terminate her pregnancy without her parents' knowledge or permission is somehow simultaneously not mature enough when it comes to choosing which foods to eat! In short: choosing to end a pregnancy is cool, while choosing what to eat is not. (Sidebar: this is not an invitation to debate abortion, but merely a demonstration of the gross inconsistency we've come to expect from the left).

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Liberal judge: Requiring proof of voting eligibility is illegal

A law passed recently in Georgia requires picture identification of any kind in order to be able to vote. Since liberal Democrats have a lock on the ineligible voter demographic (such as illegal aliens, dead people, pets, and multiple votes from the same voter), this law has obviously caused them great discomfort.

Fortunately for the liberal activist groups, they have an equally discomforted (and intellectually vacuous) ally in U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy. From Fox News:

A federal judge Tuesday blocked Georgia from enforcing a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy (search) said the law amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax because the state is not doing enough to make ID cards available to those who cannot afford them.

Emphasis mine. Really...a poll tax? How do you figure that requiring photo ID is the same thing as a poll tax? The story mentions what appears to be the crux of the argument...until you find the nugget:

A driver's license with a photo is sufficient under the law. But those who do not have a license must obtain a state ID card, which can cost up to $35. The governor said such cards would be given free to those who cannot afford the fee.

Only a nimrod with his leftist mind already made up and needn't be troubled by pesky facts (sounds like the recently removed Fred, doesn't it?) could come to the conclusion that a free I.D. card is a poll tax. Hell, who wouldn't like for their taxes to be $0.00? That's right, folks: in the mind of a liberal judge, though you pay no money, it's a tax anyway.

Democrats need people who are not legally entitled to vote to go to the polls anyway, while trying to deny the vote to overseas military personnel. They are well aware that illegal aliens and other non-citizens (not to mention the unsavory element they court in felons), and various others who are not qualified to vote would more likely than not cast their votes for Democrats than for Republicans or independents. There are actually proposals to allow non-citizens and felons to vote...all pushed by Democrats, of course!

They firmly believe that their political survival could very well depend on their ability to snag illegal votes on Election Day, since legal citizens don't seem to be voting for them these days. I guess this passes for a sick(er) version of affirmative action.

So exactly how do Democrats think voter eligibility should be determined?

Poll Worker: Do you have any ID?

Voter: Que? No comprendo.

Poll Worker: I don't speak Spanish, and this is too much trouble. Go ahead and vote. Next!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

The family drunk that won't leave

No, this isn't about Ted Kennedy. This is about how I do things around here.

See the title? I picked it. See the heading? I picked it. See the picture and description in the right frame? All mine. In short, this is my world. If you don't like it, go get your own.

See, I like it when moonbats flitter in from time to time. It's pretty fun to wreck their worldview and bring them discomfort by pointing out the ignorance and inconsistencies of their views. It's fun for them to put their hilarious paranoia on display. However, just as Bill Clinton eventually got tired of Gennifer Flowers (and scores of others), I eventually get tired of the same rantings. I'll leave the money on the dresser and be on my way.

These twits refuse to follow simple requests. When requested to read something that may "tip their apple cart", they don't. Instead, they post links to discredited (if even heard of) moonbat blogs to try to bolster their weak arguments, paranoid conspiracy theories, and other asshat ravings. Once it becomes apparent that trying to reason with them is as effective as Ted Bundy's victims having tried to reason with him, I give up trying. That's when I toss them faster than a discarded Clinton mistress.

A friend asked me via e-mail "Why would you ban them? It gives them the impression they've won!" Well, I respond, like I give a wet fart on a dry January Monday what they think! If thinking they "won" gets them through the night until their next Thorazine dosage in the morning, more power to them. I guarantee you that I don't lose a lick of sleep over it. Considering that liberal loons win scarcely anything these days, why deprive them of their perceived "victory"?

So where does the "family drunk" come in? Well, we all have someone in our family or circle of friends who simply can't take a hint and hangs around in a drunken stupor when they're no longer welcome. When you finally throw them out, they're too incoherent to take the hint and try coming back. You toss them again, and they come back again. They continually waste their time trying to inject themselves where they're no longer wanted, failing to see that no one is paying attention to them beyond the act of throwing them out. More often than not, they realize that they're wasting their time and what pitiful shell of a life they have...and move on.

Well, Fred and other moonbats are the "family drunk" here. I've decided to clean my house of the sociopaths that are incapable of intelligent thought. Media Matters, MoveOn, Code Pink, "two stolen elections", George Soros, Michael Moore...that kind of stuff just isn't welcome, because it's all bogus bullshit. If moonbats want to delude themselves into believing that claptrap, they're more than welcome to do so. It just won't be here.

So, feel free to post, moonbats, because your drivel is just going to get deleted, and you're just going to get banned. When you come in under a friend's, relative's, gay lover's, or whomever's ISP, that one will get banned and deleted, too. It likely won't even get read much (if at all), because Haloscan lets me see who's posted and their IP address. I won't respond, your post gets deleted, you get banned...in short, you are ignored like Bill Clinton ignored terrorism. If you have so little of a life that you try coming back in, that's just sad...and too damned bad, because you will still be removed, you pathetic pseudostalkers.

To my liberal friends with whom I often (if not mostly) disagree, such as James and Joshua and Honest Partisan (and Lisa Renee, though we often agree more times than not)...you are welcome here because you at least keep the debate polite, civil, and even rational. I like your contributions here, even when we passionately disagree (and even use sarcasm, which is welcome). Disagreement is as welcome as agreement, as my friends here can attest to, since we've at times disagreed on contentious issues (Terri Schiavo, death penalty, etc.).

In closing, don't come into my house and complain about the house rules. Get your own house if you don't like the rules of mine. The rules are pretty simple: keep it civil, and be thoughtful. Should you ignore those rules, I will likely respond in kind, before losing interest in you like Bill lost interest in Hillary in the 1970's.

Autorant Moonbat Machine

Hat tip to Mike's America. Check it out (link), because it's just damned funny. The output looks like stuff you'd see from the Kos kiddies, Media Matters mental midgets, MoveOn morons, and recent dipsh#t visitors here.

Basically, you ask the robot a question (or just say anything), and it replies with moonbattery. Here's a couple of gems it spewed back to me:

ME: How are you?ROBOT: Shut up already!!! Unlike GROVER Norquist, I AM not in love WITH fur. Bu$$$h wants Abu Ghraib for the oil!!! Sorry, world!!!! Bill O'Reilly! Bill Frist!? I can't tell one cheerleader for the Military-Industrial Complex from the other!! Halliburton can neglect 11,642 bunny rabbits, all in the name of "God Bless America"?

ME: What?ROBOT: Shut up!!!! I reject violence and division! I believe, Chimpboy can talk about "Patriot Act" all he wants, all the while eating minority bilingual workers!!!! Sorry!!!

ME: O-kay then!ROBOT: Wrong. U.S. get OUT of Norway!!! I presume, Susan Sarandon's book, "Stoned: How the Justice Department Controls the Logging Industry," should be required reading for Rechimplickins!! This administration can impoverish prisoners of war, in the name of "Jesus"?

I swear, this could keep me busy for hours! But alas, I must return to work, for some welfare queen in Detroit needs me to keep working to sustain her lifestyle!

Blood for oil...from Clinton?

Did Clinton look the other way after the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, in order to affect oil prices and thus bolster his re-election chances? From NewsMax:

Ex-president Bill Clinton didn't press Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to help with the FBI's investigation into the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing because he feared Abdullah would hike oil prices and hurt his reelection chances, according to former top Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

"Clinton was obsessed with gas prices," he recalls, in a column in Tuesday's New York Post.

"We would talk about them all the time. Every poll probed the issue and measured the level of popular animosity over their increase and the extent to which Clinton himself was blamed."

In the spring of 1996, oil prices began to spike - causing reelection jitters in the Oval Office.

And to think that we pegged Clinton for being soft on terrorism! Whatever were we thinking?

The man was so obsessed with winning re-election that he jeopardized national security (selling nuclear technology and political access to the Chinese), leased out the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder, and ignored Islamic terrorism. Truth is, he didn't have to do any of that, since he was going to win re-election in a convincing manner anyway. I suppose his "Maybe, but what if...?" mechanism was too strong.

I don't want to hear any more from libs who complain (accurately, I concede) that Bush is too cozy with the Saudis, when his predecessor clearly was cozy with them, too.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Toledo race riots

A group called American Nazis marched through a gang-riddled and crime-infested predominantly black neighborhood in Toledo to protest the gang violence and black-on-white crime. So what's dumber than a group of racist white skinheads marching in a black neighborhood to hurl ignorant racial epithets in a galling and mocking display of "social concern"?

How about when the residents there lend credence to the bigots' accusations? Yes, that will trump the stupidity and gall of the skinheads, all right! The Toledo Blade reports of black residents looting, attacking cops, rioting, and burning and pillaging white-owned businesses. Just ask Lou Ratajski, owner (or, as a result of the carnage, former owner) of Jim and Lou's Sportsmans Club, what he thinks of his business having been burned down by the rioters. Story here.

...those protesting were mainly male gang members in their 20s...

A mob of at least 500 people threw bricks and rocks at police and vehicles, looted a bar at Central and Mulberry and started it on fire, and overturned a car at a North Toledo gas station and burned it.

"So you think we're an inferior race, and all we do is loot, burn, riot, and plunder? We'll show you white racist bastards! We'll teach you a lesson you'll never forget! We're going to...uh...well, we're going to loot, burn, riot, and plunder!"

What does one of the black residents say in defense of the actions of his neighbors?

"You can't allow people to come challenge a whole city and not think they weren't going to strike back," said Kenneth Allen, 47, who watched the violence begin near his home.

"Not going to strike back"? Strike back at whom, dumb ass? Jim and Lou? They're not the American Nazis! They are, however, white...and for some reason known in the dark nether-reaches of the minds of the politically correct MSM, this shared trait with the American Nazis somehow was sufficient reason for Jim and Lou to lose their business.

That's right, the MSM doesn't hold the black lawbreakers responsible for their part of this race relations nightmare. Instead, the ABC headline (online) incorrectly blared "White Supremacists Riot in Ohio"!

As Michelle Malkin points out more pointedly than I could: "Pat yourselves on the back, Toledo rioters/looters/gangsters. You probably stoked more racism than the idiotic white supremacists could have ever dreamed of spreading--and you made their inconsequential demonstration of hatred a smashing success. Literally."

A word about the Sponsor links on this site

No, this isn't a solicitation to click on the links. OK, I lied...it's a slight solicitation! :-)

Actually, this is an explanation. Notice in the Sponsors section in the right frame (towards righthand center of the page)? The ads are powered by Google's AdSense. Basically, it means that when I post something on this page, a content-sensitive ad gets displayed in that section by paid advertisers. Notice that the ads are usually about 80% - 90% left-wing. Obviously, I'm not a lefty, but if I post something that says "Al Franken sucks", the AdSense "spiders" pick up "Al Franken" and put in ads that are leftist (and sometimes as crazy as Franken) in nature.

You wanna piss these people off? Click on their links, which (a) costs them money and (b) has a portion of their ad money go into MY pocket! See, if you click their link, go to their site, and not buy any of their crap...I still get some change thrown at me just because you showed up! Beautiful, eh? (Sorry...I got Canadian on you!)

Anyway, don't click on a link if you don't want to. I'm just glad to have you guys (and gals) here! But I figured I'd explain the dynamics of the machine, anyway.

MSM: Iraqi constitution "divisive"

Here's an AP article about events surrounding the historic constitutional referendum vote in Iraq. This excerpt is interesting to note:

Sunni leaders responded angrily, some of them saying they suspected fraud and accusing American officials and the Shiite parties that dominate the government.

(snip...)

Large numbers of Sunnis voted "no," and some of their leaders were already rejecting the apparent result.

Kinda sounds like today's Democratic Party, doesn't it? If you don't like the outcome, go into denial, accuse without foundation the other side of fraud, and pretend it didn't happen.

But this excerpt is even more interesting:

But the outcome could further divide the nation. Many Sunnis fear the new decentralized government will deprive them of their fair share in the country's vast oil wealth by creating virtually independent mini-states of Kurds in the north and minority Shiites in the south, while leaving Sunnis isolated in central and western Iraq.

If Sunnis would have participated in the process instead of fighting it tooth and nail and boycotting the first elections, this worry would be unfounded. They were invited to dinner, and they didn't show, so it's not the chef's fault.

But how about the "outcome could divide the nation" line? The implication is that nations are unable to survive (or at least thrive) if there's no consensus on elected officials. This country's last two elections have been close (in 2000) and relatively close (in 2004), thus exposing a partisan rift in America. Does that mean America isn't great, simply because we had close elections among a divided electorate? (No, it's not a trick question, Democrats!)

Leave it to the MSM to find one weed in a field of dreams for the Iraqis.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Someone feels the same way about the UN as I do!

NYT pulls a Kerry

The Old Gray Hag, once known as the venerable New York Times before it fell on credibility and accuracy hard times, has pulled a John Kerry: the turnout in Iraq for the historic vote was low...before it was high. From Newsbusters:

A New York Times article placed prominently on the front page of Sunday’s print edition, written by Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns, played down the success of Saturday’s vote in Iraq concerning that nation’s constitution, and suggested that turnout was lower this time than during January’s elections:

“On Saturday in Baghdad, streets were noticeably bare of pedestrians, polling centers were less busy, and voters exhibited little enthusiasm.

“‘I sense that the turnout will be lower this time,’ said Zainab Kudir, the chief poll worker at the Marjayoun Primary School in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. ‘People feel their needs have not been met. There is no security. There are no jobs.’"

Yet, after many other media outlets reported that turnout was going to surpass January’s final tally, Filkins and Burns posted this at the Times website just moments ago:

“Officials at Iraq's election commission said that the early count pointed to a turnout as high as 65 per cent of the country's 15.5 million voters, a showing that would exceed the 58 per cent turnout in the January election that chose a transitional government.”

A reader of Newsbusters has a "Top Ten List of Excuses Why the Times Changed the Story":

1- Still using the DNC/Kerry Exit Polling Method.

2- Jason Blair contributed to the first article

3- Staff psychic received new vision

4- Distracted by Karl Roves fourth appearance before the grand jury

5- Got the DNC fax too late for the first story

6- The Iraqis voted against voting before voting for voting

7- Those pesky purple dimpled finger chads

8- On assignment reporter finally left the green zone

9- Save the trouble of offering an uncorrected correction two months later

10- Bush’s fault

That's hilarious...almost as funny as libs who maintain there is no liberal media bias! Almost, that is.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Calypso Louie beamed up to UFO to talk with dead guy

Is the Nation of Islam in general, and Louis Farrakhan in specific, even credible anymore? Calypso Louie on Fox News Channel:

I was in a tiny village in Tepoztlan in Mexico on the 17th of September, 1985, and I had a vision-like experience climbing a mountain there on the top of which is a temple to the Mesoamerican Christ figure, Quetzalcoatl.

And one of these little UFOs came over that mountain, and I was signaled from a group of persons to come, and I was beamed up into that small vehicle and carried to a larger vehicle where I heard the voice of my leader and teacher, the Honorable Elijah Mohammed saying these words to me.

In early September, the president met with his Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a war. He didn't tell me who the war was against or what not, but later in the next -- early in the next year, it came to me while I was in Ghana that this war was against Libya and Libya's leader, Moammar Khadafy. So I went there and warned him of what was about to take place, and it did take place.

That damned biased Fox News Channel! They knew that Louie was gonna embarrass himself and the left by opening his mouth, and those bastards gave him the forum to do just that!

So...(snicker)...stop laughing, Louie's serious! (Snicker) Sorry! Anyway, Louie was plucked from a Mexican mountaintop by a UFO, beamed aboard the mothership, talked with the dead former Nation of Islam leader, and warned Khadafy of the impending strike against Libya. He even peddles the wild-ass rumor that the New Orleans levees were exploded to kill of black folks in New Orleans. Does he retain even a shred of credibility, when he's clearly a paranoid moonbat asshat with a SciFi Channel addiction?

MSM: "Bush staged event with troops!"

The MSM is getting more worked up than a Frenchman at the thought of bathing! What's got their collective panties in a bunch this time? They're saying that Bush's addressing the troops in Iraq was staged. Details from Newsbusters:

In the Bush/Iraq segment, Today screened footage indicating that prior to engaging in a video conversation with President Bush, soldiers on the ground in Iraq were given tips by a Department of Defense official.

But the only advice that the official was shown as giving was a suggestion to one solider to "take a little breath" before speaking to the president so he would actually be speaking to him. It was also stated that some of the soldiers practiced their comments so as to appear as articulate as possible. But there was no indication, or even allegation, that the soldiers were coached as to the substance of their comments or in any way instructed what to say.

You have to understand something about the MSM. They think there is a big difference between good staging and bad staging. When liberals or the media (pardon the redundancy) stage, it's acceptable. When non-libs stage, it's an outrage!

Anyone remember Bill Clinton's walk on the beaches of Normandy in 1994? He just so happened to come upon some rocks while walking "pensively" on the rockless beach, and he bent over (keep it clean, children!) to form the rocks into a cross (for those of you in blue states, a cross is an important Christian symbol). I'm just sure it was an act of spontaneity, and not staged. Well, it had its desired effect: the press swooned like lovesick prepubescent teenie girls at a Justin Timberlake concert. Conclusion: staging good.

How about December last year, when a TN National Guardsman read a prepared (i.e. "staged", if the left wants to try a first and be consistent) question to Rumsfeld about a lack of body and vehicle armor? The question was prompted (and written) by a reporter for The Chattanooga Times Free Press who got the soldier to read the reporter's question! Conclusion: staging good.

Right after U.S. troops caught Saddam from a rathole in Tikrit, how does the media coer it? Barely had time to cover it, since they were wetting themselves over an event where Bush served a (gasp!)...turkey to the troops! Contrary to myth, it wasn't a plastic turkey, either. Doesn't matter! Conclusion: staging BAD!

Look, the troops love Bush. They voted for him to the tune of 70% - 30% in 2000 and about the same last year. Democrats' hostility to all things defense hasn't made the troops happy in a long time. This reality drives the MSM madder than Ted Kennedy on the last drop of Chivas Regal!

In a deliciously ironic twist of fate, shortly before airing a segment aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration by suggesting that it had staged a video conversation between the president and soldiers in Iraq, the Today show was caught staging . . . a video stunt.

(snip...)

Today's timing couldn't have been worse. A preceding segment focused on the incessant rains and ensuing flooding in the northeast. For days now, beautiful, blonde - and one senses highly ambitious - young reporter Michelle Kosinski has been on the scene for Today in New Jersey, working the story. In an apparent effort to draw attention to herself, in yesterday's segment she turned up in hip waders, standing thigh-deep in the flood waters.

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

"People in canoes in a few inches of water shouldn't throw video-stunt stones."

How do Iraqis view their newly found right to vote?

You tell me if these folks were better off under Hussein, as Howard Dean and the Sheehanistas maintain? Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs for this photo, of an Iraqi woman who just gave birth but isn't letting that stop her from casting her vote on Iraq's constitutional referendum:

Unlike Mother Moonbat and her ilk, it looks like this Iraqi woman actually gives a damn about the direction of her country, and wants to take an active role in making it better for her kids.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Home heating costs to rise...in a warm winter?

Make up your mind, people!

The MSM wants to continue to highlight high energy prices, and to trumpet the junk science Chicken Little "global warming" mantra...both to make Bush look bad. However, they can't seem to get their stories straight. Compare these two headlines:

Um...how are heating costs going to "soar" if winter is warmer than normal? Do you usually heat your house when it warms up? Me neither. Ergo, home heating costs will not "soar" if there's a milder-than-average winter.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Gore unhinged...again

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

Damned shame...I was looking forward to the concession speech again. Of course he's not running for president again! With all the moonbat rants he's launched since then, as well as his hard work to quash the military vote in FL in 2000, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell he'd be elected! He may be a paranoid whack job, but he's not completely dumb...he knows this. Anyway, more from Al Bore...er, Gore:

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said.

Uh, sir...your kind already controls the MSM. You lament the fact that you guys are losing the near-monopoly grip you once enjoyed on information dissemination. Yessirree, Gore is so repelled by attempts to control media, that he...started his own media network! Granted, it's watched by almost as few viewers as Air America has listeners, but the hypocrisy is amusing nonetheless. Plus, he called for a return of the Fairness Doctrine last week, which is government control over what format radio stations are allowed to broadcast. Sounds like "trying to control and intimidate" the media to me, you damned liar!

Oh, and as for "We would not be routinely torturing people"? Sir, every time you open that Michael Moore-sized piehole of yours and subject us to the drivel that spews abundantly from it, you are "routinely torturing people"! This anti-military fat bastard wanted to be commander-in-chief, though he fought like hell in 2000 to keep the same soldiers he wanted to command from having their votes counted in Florida...all while piously calling to "count every vote"!

Just think, folks: this nutbar came within a few hundred bluehaired condo commando votes of the Oval Office. And (excluding the Sheehanistas), who says there isn't a God? :-)

Tax reform commission fails America

The President assembled former career politicians and current academics to assess possible tax reform solutions in America. As evidenced by the roaring success of The Fair Tax book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (it's been #1 on the NYT Bestseller List), we Americans are hungry for meaningful tax reform.

The current system is in shambles, hopelessly beyond repair, and needn't be tinkered with any more. It's years of tinkering that have led to mass confusion, billions of dollars of lost time and productivity, and countless efforts at evasion and fraud. The President recognized this, and decided to appoint a panel with three recommendations, all of which the panel failed miserably in addressing:

1. simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (FAILED...barely addressed)

2. share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (FAILED)

3. promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace. (FAILED...barely addressed)

They telegraphed their intent early on, when they said they wouldn't consider wholesale reform, but instead would propose incremental changes. Such changes over they years have led to tens of thousands of pages of complex (and sometimes contradictory) tax laws.

Flat tax? Nope. Flatter tax? Nah. Fair Tax? In your dreams! No, instead they advocated reducing home mortgage interest deductibility, as well as employers being able to deduct all amounts they contribute towards your health care. In other words, a tax increase on certain homeowners (oh, goody...the "rich"!) and businesses (oh, goody...the "rich"!). Yes, the esteemed geniuses (or genii?) debated, deliberated, and pondered as hard as their pea-brains were capable and came up with...tax increases?? Somehow, I missed where tax increases on "the rich" and "businesses" increases home ownership and charitable contributions, simplifies the tax system and reduces administrative costs, or especially provides economic growth and job-creation!

I'm madder than Barney Frank having lost his favorite buttplug! This has renewed my commitment to get as many people I know to contact their Congressional representatives and raise holy Hell on these lobbyist-seduced elitist gravy-trainers! Contact your House member today, and contact the President, too! Tell them to get off their duff and support the Fair Tax (which is HB 25), or at the very least, a new tax reform commission...one that won't be guilty of dereliction of duty!

al Qaeda: "Remember Vietnam!"

So, should the U.S. tuck tail and run from Iraq, like Mother Moonbat and her Sheehanistas suggest we do? Here's al Qaeda's take:

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

This news should be received as flattery by Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, MoveOn, ANSWER, et al: those "freedom fighters" agree with you!

How about that? The Islamofascists remember how we ran from Vietnam, and they concluded that we were soft and had no spine. After decades of pathetic responses to acts of Islamic terrorism, can we blame them for coming to that conclusion?

I mean, people like Jimmy Carter wanted to appease them and John Kerry wanted to treat them as mere "law enforcement" "nuisances." Clinton was a little...ahem...too "busy" to deal with the inconvenience. Hell, even Reagan sent a horrible message by retreating after the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed all of those Marines. That Bush refuses to back down despite the relentless onslaught of shameless liberal posturing and MSM push polls is a testament to his character. He knows the enemy and what must be done to stop them, even if others don't know or don't have the resolve.

Continuing:

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

There's a bit of great news for our MSM: al Qaeda agrees with you, and finds you to be a useful idiot significant ally in their quest to turn Iraq into an Islamofascist terror state! Who says the press in this country isn't appreciated? al Qaeda seems to appreciate their work! Really, seeing the enemy openly brag about how American media is vital to evil's cause should give our media pause to think about their slanted, biased reporting; however, because the MSM's hatred for "all things Bush" is so blinding and intense, they would rather allow themselves to be pawns of bloodthirsty savages bent on our destruction...if it means that Bush looks bad.

Despite the fact that even our enemies see it...you libs keep telling yourself that there's no liberal media bias.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Katie Couric circles the Clinton wagons

Katie Couric, interviewing former FBI director Louis Freeh:

Couric: "You know many people have viewed this book in reviews and, and newspaper accounts so far as your effort to settle scores with the President. Do you think, you obviously, there's no love lost between the two of you, that's very, very clear. Do you think your personal animus might be coloring your professional perspective so much that you can't be objective about what was really going on during the administration?"

Can one not pose the same question to Couric, that her "personal animus" may be "coloring [her] professional perspective"? Couric continues:

COURIC: "Well, in terms of technology, you write, 'We were in the Dark Ages.' When you say the administration would not put on a war footing, they didn't allocate the resources that your department needed, is that what you're contending?"

FREEH: Yeah, let me just talk about that for a second. You know, we had asked for $430 million in 1995 for computer technology. We got over the course of the next five years about $200 million. We asked for 1900 new resources, Arabic speakers, linguists, we got 76. We asked for $381 million. We got five. We asked for 894 people. We got 17.

The President proposed the budget, and the spineless (or clueless) GOP Congress went along with it. Well, Katie wasn't having any of that!

How can you honestly say that you believe the FBI really focused enough on potential terrorism in this country? You talk about the bureau being hamstrung. Is that what you're contending? Shouldn't you have raised a red flag earlier? A lot of people say you were never in those meetings. The president did push the Saudis, and you really don't know what you're talking about.

Emphasis mine. That's a journo's trick, using the ambiguous "some people" or "many" or "a lot of people", which translated, means "I haven't talked to a damned soul about this, and I'm injecting my view into the story, so I'll use the unverifiable 'some people say' line!"

Note the hostility in the questions. Hey, if she wants to accuse Freeh of making stuff up for the sole purpose of selling a book, that's fair game. However, one must question the consistency of Couric and her Today ilk.

After all, these people had Kitty Kelley on not once, not twice, but thrice, in order to hawk her tabloidal (and since discredited) book. You know, the one that said Sharon Bush (Bush's brother's ex-wife) said unflattering things about W? Problem is, Sharon said that she never said any of that. Yet here was Kelley, being showered with Couric affection like Monica was showered with Clinton man-juice!

Was Kelley's credibility impugned by Couric? Nope. What about Richard Clarke, who wrote an anti-Bush book? No credibility challenge for him, either, despite evidence that at least challenged Clarke's recollection (to say the least).

In summary: any book that is less than flattering towards the Clintons must necessarily be a work of fiction, and any book that is less than flattering towards the Bush administration must be "thoroughly explored and examined."

Income taxes

I keep threatening to do it, but I think I might get off my duff and start this week. I'm a firm believer in the Fair Tax, and I will begin a series of posts tauting its virtues, and how typical liberal arguments against it would be rendered impotent. Until the series begins, though, here's a great Bruce Bartlett column on how a NYT columnist rails against our current income tax system...because the rich don't pay enough.

The first of these deals with taxation and appeared on Oct. 4. It was written by Times editorial board member Teresa Tritch, who writes most of its economic editorials. She lists her qualifications as having degrees in German and journalism, as well as years writing about personal finance for Money magazine—explaining why people should shop around for the lowest price before buying soap and things of that sort.

Nothing says "I'm a tax policy expert" more than being able to spot a great bargain on Dove, and telling us about said bargain in German! Continuing:

According to Ms. Tritch, our tax system should serve one purpose and one purpose only—to soak the rich. Any reduction in tax rates, especially on saving and investment, has nothing to do with raising growth, but is nothing but a give-away to the ultra-wealthy. One can see now why she was hired by the Times despite a paucity of knowledge or experience in the field of economics.

The reality is that the wealthy pay almost all of the federal income tax and there is clear and compelling evidence that our tax system—especially its misguided redistributive elements—impose a heavy cost in terms of growth that is ultimately paid by the non-wealthy in the form of lower productivity and, hence, lower wages and incomes.

The NYT hired another class warfare economics ignoramus? Damn...I heard that Paul Krugman hates competition! Her hiring should make standing in line at Starbucks getting their $7 lattés more awkward, huh? Continuing:

Interestingly, the latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden were released the same day Ms. Tritch’s tirade appeared. They show that the top one percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top five percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

Another IRS report decomposed the top one percent and found that the top ten percent of the top one percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from seven percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion—four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent—who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.

I would be curious to know just how much more Ms. Tritch thinks the wealthy ought to be paying? Back in the good old days (from her point of view) when Jimmy Carter was president and the top statutory tax rate was 70 percent (versus 35 percent today), the top one percent of taxpayers paid only 19.7 percent of all federal income taxes. In other words, although their marginal tax rate has fallen by 50 percent, their tax share has almost doubled.

In short, the top half of income-earners in this country pay about 97% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pay over 1/3 of all income taxes. Truly, just how much more should half of the country be shielded from virtually no income tax liability?

Also read that last paragraph in the prior blockquote again. Under Carter, the top tax rate was 70%. It's half of that now...yet the amount of taxes paid by the same group has nearly doubled! That's supply-side economics in its beauty: cut tax rates, and tax revenues increase! What Congress does with those revenues is a different matter.

Finally, Bartlett's column mentions how Britain has a top tax rate of 40%, but the wealthiest 1% pay only 21% of the income taxes. The bottom half pay 11%, or over 300% more, than our bottom half. So rich Brits pay higher tax rates, but less of the tax burden, than rich Americans.

Make up you mind, people! Do you want higher tax rates or more taxes collected? Because as this evidence (and a cursory grasp of economics) reveals, you cannot have both.

By the way...the Fair Tax eliminates the problems inherent in the income tax model. Future posts coming soon!

Clinton was disinterested in fighting terrorism

Former FBI director Louis Freeh said that Clinton was indifferent to terrorism. Well, duh! Hard to concentrate on fighting terrorism when you're being serviced by an intern your daughter's age, to say nothing of the plethora of other ethical and legal problems that the corrupt perjuring philanderer had. From Boortz:

The plot is now thickening over the war of words between former FBI Director Louis Freeh and the Clinton administration. Freeh said on '60 Minutes' over the weekend that Bill Clinton was indifferent to the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 that killed 19 U.S. servicemen and refused to complain to Crown Prince Abdullah directly about a lack of cooperation. Instead, said Freeh, the 42nd president of the United States hit them up for a donation to his presidential library.

It took all of about 2 minutes for the former Clinton cronies to storm out of the woodwork and start defending their former boss. Sandy 'Pants' Berger said he was at the meeting, and Freeh is lying. But today we learn from the Saudis....and it's actually worse than what Freeh said.

This comes to us according to a 2001 New Yorker piece, which quotes two sources close to former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He says former President Clinton was almost ready to cry because of his legal problems stemming from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and that they didn't really talk too much about the Khobar Towers case. In fact, Clinton didn't really press Abdullah about it at all. Evidently the ambassador had warned Abdullah to expect some questions about Khobar, but when none came, the prince was stunned that Clinton showed such little interest.

The leader of the free world crying in front of the Prince of Saudi Arabia. No wonder nothing was ever done about terrorism for eight years.

Of course he was crying...he "felt our pain"!

There are few things as laughable as Billybob trotting out national security secrets klepto Sandy Burglar...er, Berger...to try and refute Freeh's assertions. Does anyone see find the delectable irony of a known liar (Clinton) sending out a known liar and thief (Burglar) to try and restore some credibility and to refute Freeh's assertions?

Billybob was more interested in hitting up the Saudis for money for his presidential library...which somehow, according to liberals, is much more noble and acceptable than the reasons they give for Bush being cozy with the Saudis (oil). So in short, kissing Saudi ass is fine, so long as it's for money to one's legacy-rehab library and not for oil.

To be fair, Freeh has a book out, so it is reasonable to take what he says with a grain of salt. It is also reasonable to believe that he is right in that Bill Clinton just wasn't interested in fighting terrorism...and we're cleaning up the mess today, as a result.

Monday, October 10, 2005

GOP to return to "GOP of old"?

Interesting article in Philly.com about how the Republicans are trying to move away from the "drunken sailor" spending image that Bush has displayed. However, Bush has hardly been alone, since it is his party that controls the purse strings. From Philly.com:

The Republican hopefuls - as many as a dozen men who already are jockeying for advantage - don't want to be perceived as insiders and heirs to the Bush political establishment. On the contrary, most of them are trying to advertise their independence, to distance themselves from Bush on key issues, to appear as rebels fed up with the wicked ways of Washington.

A small sampling:

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is tweaking Bush for his budget-busting spending binge.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a hero to grassroots conservatives, is threatening to oppose the Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska assails Bush on Iraq, contending that the White House is "disconnected from reality."

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee scoffs at Bush's suggestion that perhaps the Pentagon should be the lead agency handling natural disasters.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, contends that the current GOP establishment, mired in scandals, has betrayed the small-government reform agenda that congressional conservatives brought to Washington 10 years ago.

The Senators (plus Tancredo) have a credibility problem, though, in that they have been enablers of the bloated spending (excluding defense) we've seen since 9/11/2001. Kinda hard for them to argue that they want to be Republicans again...but "wait for '08!" Continuing:

Matthew Continetti, a conservative analyst who is writing a book about the Republican Party, said Friday: "The scandals we're facing are the consequences of being in power so long. Establishments attract ne'er-do-wells. The question we face is, do we want to continue along the same road? During the 2008 primaries, there will be reform candidates making the argument that 'we need to return to our ideals.'"

As for Bush, "you'll see people distancing themselves from him even more. This President is becoming weaker by the day."

Here's the distancing process in action: Top Republicans in four states - West Virginia, North Dakota, Florida and Michigan - have spurned the administration's attempts to sign them up as challengers to four Democratic senators up for reelection in 2006. And this year, in the reliably red state of Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore has conspicuously neglected to enlist Bush's help on the stump.

This is a disturbing trend for the GOP. Normally, when Bush has asked someone to run for the Senate to dispel an onstructionist Democrat, Republican candidates have obliged, oftentimes with success (where's Tom Daschle?). However, with more and more party players moving away from Bush, this is bad news for Republicans. Continuing:

Bill Pascoe, a conservative strategist in Chicago, said Friday: "Many conservatives believe that President Bush gave up leadership of the movement last Monday morning, with the Miers nomination. They're disappointed that [by failing to pick a prominent jurist] he shied away from a fight that would have united Republicans and divided Democrats... .

"We wanted a conservative with a track record. We've heard that 'trust me' line many times before. What all this means, for 2008, is that [we] will be more determined to look for a presidential candidate with a conservative track record, somebody with the ability to deliver proven conservative governance."

Normally, the ineptness of Republicans has been offset by grander displays of ineptness and idiocy from Democrats (selections of Howard Dean for DNC chief and Jean-Francois Kerry for prez come to mind). However, one must believe that the law of averages will eventually work in Democrats' favor. If the Democrats can ever convince (or trick, depending on how you look at it) the electorate into believing that they are strong on defense, the GOP is likely in big trouble.

The good news for the GOP, though, is that Dems have by and large yet been able to capitalize on GOP misfortuntes. How long this serendipity lasts is anyone's guess.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Headline: "MIERS VOTED FOR REAGAN IN '84"

Whew! I guess that means she'll make a great SCOTUS nominee! Although...now that I think about it...HEY! A fantastic family opportunity has arrived!

Yessirree, my father also voted for Reagan in 1984. Heck, he even voted for Reagan in 1980, too! Hear that, Dad? You too are qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court!

Wow...a Supreme Court Justice in the Leffingwell household! Somebody call the President and let him know that someone who voted for Reagan not once, but twice, is available to be on the bench! Hell, I'd love to be in the same room with Dad as he verbally spars with Race Baiter Ginsburg and the rest of the Kelo crowd!

What a wonderful evening this is turning out to be. Now if the Jaguars can just hold on for one more quarter to beat the Bengals, this day will be complete!

Friday, October 07, 2005

Dem analysts: "Don't appear too liberal"

What have I been saying since I started this blog about Democrats running from the "liberal" label as fast as an Ethiopian chicken? Sure, they want the money from the moonbat groups like MoveOn, PETA, Communist Party of America, etc., but they don't want the albatross around their neck of being labeled (accurately, I might add) "liberal."

See, your average liberal citizen generally doesn't mind being identified as such. After all, they're citizens and not politicians. However, most politicians (with only a few exceptions) are as scared of the label as David Duke and Robert Byrd at a Black Panther reunion.

But don't take my word for it...listen to Democrat analysts themselves. From the Washington comPost:

The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power, according to a new study by two prominent Democratic analysts.

In the latest shot in a long-running war over the party's direction -- an argument turned more passionate after Democrat John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last year -- two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

(snip...)

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Now here are a couple of Democrats who get it! They understand political reality 100% correctly! Liberals are in the overwhelming minority in this country. Americans simply are not liberal, and by and large, they detest liberals. Liberals are usually removed from reality when it comes to things that the average American finds important (such as national defense in a post-9/11 world), and oftentimes, they are incredibly condescending and arrogant towards the very same people they purport to court at the ballot box! Continuing:

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:

· They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."

· They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.

· They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.

Their basic thesis is that the number of solidly conservative Republican voters is substantially larger that the reliably Democratic liberal voter base. To win, the argument goes, Democrats must make much larger inroads among moderates than the GOP.

Bingo! Like I said, liberals are in the tiny minority, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Plus, conservative citizens AND politicians usually embrace that label...liberal politicians do not.

Health care and education mean jack squat if we're all dead from a well-placed Islamofascist nuclear suitcase. Jean-Francois Kerry thought he could win with non-security issues. He was wrong.

Look, Bush was vulernable last year. I believe that a demonstrably centrist and pro-defense Democrat may have likely defeated Bush. However, the party that can't seem to do anything right chose a hippie anti-war protestor and effete elitist Northeastern liberal snob as their standard-bearer. It's like they just couldn't help themselves!

The one area where the analysis seems to come up just short is that it fails to provide a valid recommendation on how to deal with the liberal cabal attempting to overtake the Democratic Party. The analysts recognized the problem, but like most Democrats we see today, failed to propose a viable solution. Simply "don't appear too liberal" is not going to cut it.

"I see dead people!"

The MSM is making a big deal out of Bush saying that he talks to God...and God talks back. From the Beeb:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

While I concede that it probably wasn't wise to tell a group of Muslims that our God wanted us to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, I do notice a bit of hypocrisy here by the MSM...color me with the "surprised" crayon!

Recall Hillary's imaginary conversations with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt? Why, the press lapped that up like Ted Kennedy's dog "Splash" (must.resist."Chappaquiddick".quip!) on a bowl of apple brandy! That's right, this "unconventional" introspection was proof of Hillary's genius, as far as the MSM was concerned.

So, in summary: talking to God makes you weird, but talking to the Ghost of First Lady Past makes you brilliant. Got it?

Thursday, October 06, 2005

OU suicide bomber

Have you folks been keeping up with this? I'm not sure why I haven't seen more of this, although I'm resisting the temptation to chalk this up to MSM political correctness. It could be because details are still skethcy in some areas. At any rate, thank God for the blogosphere!

Gore unhinged: Rush "hatemonger", media not liberal enough

The moonbat who came within a gnat's hair (or Howard Dean schlong-length...same thing) of winning the 2000 presidency this morning lamented the direction of the media in this country. Yes, Al Gore finds it regrettable that Americans are tuning out the liberal media, and even goes so far as to make the laughable claim that the media isn't liberal. Fortunately, polls show that by almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans are smarter (or more honest, depending on your viewpoint) than Al Gore is, and correctly see the liberal bias that seeps from the MSM.

Here are some gems from the portly former veep:

On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked:

Does it even matter what Byrd asked, when the fact slaps you in the face that Gore is quoting a damned former Klansman? Politics makes strange bedfellows (calm down, Barney Frank)! Continuing:

And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

"Hate-mongers", Al? Been to any of those MoveOn, Code Pink, or other similar moonbat festivals lately? Now there is where you'll find true hate-mongering!

I think what Al was trying to say was that because they are conservatives, Rush et al must be hate-mongers, since he obviously wasn't talking about The Air America Looting Network's hate-spewing, bile-dripping, and rarely heard personalities like Al Franken (who has physically assaulted people) and Randi Rhodes (who had a "bit" advocating shooting the president). Nah, those AA folks are just giving us some good clean family fun...right, Al? Continuing:

As recently stated by Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House -

Uh, wrong again, Al. Dan Rather says his resignation was unrelated to the forged documents scandal. However, if I were inclined to accept your premise that Rather was "forced out" (and I am indeed so inclined), it would be because he embarrassed his longtime employer by running harder and faster than Bill Clinton with an intern with documents that he swore were true and genuine AND with a source that he swore was "unimpeachable"...both assertions of which were later proved to be false.

This D.C. moonbat (who was rumored to have stopped in Tennessee once or twice, which was not nearly often enough to convince the state to vote for him) was intoxicatingly close to winning the presidency five years ago. The fact that he did not, when coupled with only a smidgeon of his idiotic quotes and observations above, is proof that there is a God!

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Can we call it the "hippy plague"...or "rejects' rickets"?

Small amounts of bacteria detected in the District during last weekend's war protests are not harmful and probably occurred naturally, say officials from the D.C. Department of Health.

D.C. Health Director Dr. Gregg Pane tells WTOP Radio that the bio-watch collectors, operated by the Department of Homeland Security, tested positive for a small amount of Tularemia last weekend during the protests on the National Mall.

Occurred "naturally"? There were hippies there, so of course it occurred naturally!

I find it funnier than Maxine Waters' financial advice ("Salomon Barney Frank"") that these miscreants who refuse to bathe in the name of la cause du jour are so mired in their own filth and decay that they actually alerted Homeland Security's bio-watch team! We've always known that these vermin were nothing more than filthy, disease-ridden social rejects...and now we have the science to back it up!

FL Sen. Bill Nelson: Americans fed up with GOP

I have few quick thoughts on this, but first, read my "distinguished" Senator's reasoning:

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans' intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

"It started with Terri Schiavo," Nelson said. "I think what you're seeing is a reaction - that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people's throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

"I can't tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said 'I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,"' Nelson said. "All of these things are coming home to roost."

Leave it to a liberal (who pretends not to be one) to assert that the feds were supposed to be the first responders to Katrina, absolving the N.O. mayor and La. guv (both Democrats...I'm just sure it's a coincidence and has no impact on Nelson's thinking!) for their incompetence. Sorry, Nelson, but polls show that unlike you, Americans think the proper way: local, then state, then federal!

First of all, Senator, it's ironic that you refer to poll numbers, when yours here in Florida have been pretty shoddy. Your best bet is for the GOP to nominate Katherine Harris, who is only slightly more unpopular than you are. Florida is a reliable GOP state, as you may find out next year.

Secondly, the war in Iraq? You voted to authorize troops, as well as every supplement since then. What are you now...John "liked it then hated it" Kerry? Shut your trap on that.

Thirdly, Terri Schiavo. I won't rehash that issue, but it may not have as much traction as you'd like it to have as far as issues go. Americans are, for better or worse, short-attention span creatures. Yes, a majority held Nelson's view, but they've moved on.

Fourthly, I agree 100% with Nelson on the spending. However, when Democrats ran the show, they spent like drunken sailors, too...it's just that their spending priorities were different. Their spending aimed to cut defense, punish success, increase dependency on government, and perpetuate demonstrably failed social engineering and "Great Society" programs...basically, increase the welfare state. Both parties' spending mindsets suck, and until Americans get fed up enough to vote out the bastards (and/or vote in large enough numbers for third-party candidates, like Libertarians), this spending orgy will continue.

Also, the article mentions his desire to make us less dependent on foreign oil. Sir, we're certainly for that, but your party has been beholden to interests that have caused our energy problem, not helped it. Your opposition to refinery-, nuclear- and coal-power plant building, ANWR drilling, gulf drilling, and uniform gas standards (instead of the dozens of blends required depending on the part of the country, winner of the Super Bowl, which way cow farts travel, and other haphazard and non-standard, non-market-based criteria) have exacerbated the energy problem.

Finally, I do chuckle at Nelson's (and his ilk's) "cram their agenda down our throats" line. I don't know how to break this to the Senator, but that's what happens when you win elections! I know, since your Senate win in 2000, "winning" and "Democrats" being used in the same sentence tends to be confusing, so I'll cut you some slack. But bone up on the Constitution (that would be the document that you find quaint, yet swore to uphold back in January 2001), and get back to me when you have that "elections determine agendas" thingee figured out, m'kay?

Are Americans fed up with the GOP? Fortunately for Mr. Nelson, he'll get to find out for himself this time next year.

About Me

I am not conservative or Republican. I am a "neo-libertarian." It’s more logically consistent than conservatism and liberalism.
Liberals are not evil; however, their ideology has proven to be a demonstrable failure and incredibly harmful when administered on the body politic.
I have lived in the South all of my life. While I'd love to travel, I don't want to live anywhere else. Though I currently live near Jacksonville, FL, I call Memphis home (lived there most of my life). I'm a Florida State University Seminole, through and through.
All viewpoints are welcome on my blog. However, if I ban you or edit/delete your comments, it's because I found you to be offensive, repulsive, or otherwise useless. My world, my rules. Deal with it, or beat it.
Finally, I had a happy childhood, so my worldview has NOT been "warped" by a lousy upbringing. Quite the contrary: I have been blessed, and my outlook has been molded accordingly. I won't apologize for having grown up in a loving, middle-class family.